Asam v. Owens, 522 U.S. 862 (1997). · Go Syfert
Asam v. Owens, 522 U.S. 862 (1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Akee v. Dow Chemical Co. (hid, 2003-07-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.
D. Haw. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Papike v. Tambrands, Inc., 107 F.3d 737 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 862 , 118 S.Ct. 166 , 139 L.Ed.2d 110 (1997) (consumer cannot expect a product to perform more safely than government mandated warnings); see also Oken v. Monsanto Co., 218 F.Supp.2d 1361 (S.D.Fla.2002) (consumer expectations test necessarily involves consideration of warnings given to the public, and thus, a design defect claim on this theory is preempted by FIFRA); Eriksen v. Mobay Corp., 110 Wash.App. 332 , 41 P.3d 488 (2002) (design defect claim based on consumer expectations theory preempted by FIFRA); Reece v.…
discussed Cited "see" Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.
D. Haw. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Papike v. Tambrands, Inc., 107 F.3d 737 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 862 , 118 S.Ct. 166 , 139 L.Ed.2d 110 (1997) (consumer cannot expect a product to perform more safely than government mandated warnings); see also Oken v. Monsanto Co., 218 F.Supp.2d 1361 (S.D.Fla.2002) (consumer expectations test necessarily involves consideration of warnings given to the public, and thus, a design defect claim on this theory is preempted by FIFRA); Eriksen v. Mobay Corp., 110 Wash.App. 332 , 41 P.3d 488 (2002) (design defect claim based on consumer expectations theory preempted by FIFRA); Reece v.…
cited Cited "see" Lucinda Garcia-Jimenez, A/K/A Lucinda Gracia-Jimenez, A/K/A Lucinda Jimenez v. Waren C. Williams
9th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Papike v. Tambrands, Inc., 107 F.3d 737, 744 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 166 , 139 L.Ed.2d 110 (1997)
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Hill
D.S.D. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
In short, his conviction, in contrast to a felony conviction, carries no collateral legal consequences that he will suffer from or otherwise be exposed to. 5 Broughton v. North Carolina, 717 F.2d 147, 149 (4th Cir.1983) (misdemeanor contempt conviction creates no lingering consequences making released petitioner’s ha-beas petition moot), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 940 , 104 S.Ct. 1917 , 80 L.Ed.2d 464 (1984); see also Puchner v. Kruziki, 111 F.3d 541, 543-44 (7th Cir.) (contempt order under which petitioner was incarcerated and released, did not carry the kinds of collateral consequences that wo…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Asam
v.
Owens
No. 97-96.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1997.
522 U.S. 862
Published

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.